2024 Supreme(SC) 1108

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University – Appellant
Versus
Monika & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10800 of 2024
Decided on : 29-11-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Mode of employment is not the primary concern – Primary concern is nature of work performed and whether work undertaken by candidate has any nexus with purported work to be undertaken during course of regular service – Even though modalities for engagement of two individuals for executing similar nature of work could differ, none can gain experience without being asked to work.
(2) Appointment – True thrust of every selection process ought to be to find out and select suitable candidates, having experience in related work and fulfilling other criteria, from among eligible candidates and to go ahead with appointing more meritorious of those found suitable.
(3) Social Justice – Whenever conflict arises between powerful and powerless, social justice commands Courts to lean in favour of weaker and poorer sections where scales are evenly balanced.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Clerk – Mode of employment is not the primary concern – Primary concern is nature of work performed and whether work undertaken by candidate has any nexus with purported work to be undertaken during course of regular service – Even though modalities for engagement of two individuals for executing similar nature of work could differ, none can gain experience without being asked to work – One vital difference in working on a sanctioned post as a permanent employee and being employed in exigencies of administration without having a right to post is that in the former, appointee enjoys procedural safeguards bringing in a sense of security of service in him while in latter individual concerned may not have any such sense of security – But, in case, both perform work of clerks, experience gained would not be much at a variance subject that job requirement is not too different – It would also be relevant to bear in mind stipulations in advertisement if, at all, they call for any special requirement for marks to be secured for experience, viz. previous service rendered on a sanctioned post or if salary, as is specified, has to be received for service rendered in order to be eligible to apply. (Paras 20 and 22)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Clerk – True thrust of every selection process ought to be to find out and select suitable candidates, having experience in related work and fulfilling other criteria, from among eligible candidates and to go ahead with appointing more meritorious of those found suitable – If indeed an individual without having any security of service performs up to mark and receives commendation from none other than Head of Department, who must have closely watched his/her performance, it would occasion failure of justice to exclude such individual for no better reason than that he/she did not work on a sanctioned post – State policy, specifying that individual must have worked on a post equal to or higher than advertised posts in any of enumerated departments to secure marks for experience, also reflects State’s belief that experience in such departments is directly relevant to advertised posts – It is not open for University to now deny marks on the basis of a technical procedural deviation that experience certificate was not issued by University but rather by service provider – Respondent cannot be denied benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post – Impugned judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court upheld. (Paras 23, 25, 26 and 30)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 38 – Social Justice – Whenever conflict arises between powerful and powerless, social justice commands Courts to lean in favour of weaker and poorer sections where scales are evenly balanced – Refusal to award any mark for experience to respondent would go against grain of constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for deprived. (Paras 27 and 28)

Facts of the case:

Short question arising for decision in appeal is, whether Single Judge and then Division Bench of High Court were in error in treating first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment on post of Clerk. Crux of dispute is whether first respondent, in terms of Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for concerned time period, in light of Rules and Circulars of SoH as adopted by University.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court warrants no interference. Same is affirmed.

Result : Appeal dismissed.